Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:56:32.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EXPLORING THE ROLE OF TRANSACTIVE MEMORY SYSTEMS IN TEAM DECISION-MAKING DURING IDEATION PHASE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Mohammad Reza Dastmalchi ,
Bimal Balakrishnan  and
Danielle Oprean
Mohammad Reza Dastmalchi*
Affiliation:
University of Missouri
Bimal Balakrishnan
Affiliation:
University of Missouri
Danielle Oprean
Affiliation:
University of Missouri
*
Dastmalchi, Mohammad Reza, University of Missouri, Architectural Studies, United States of America, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Team collaboration is a critical necessity of the modern-day engineering design profession. This is no surprise given that teams typically possess more task-relevant skills and knowledge than individuals (Levine & Choi, 2004). Advancements in digital media provide new opportunities for collaboration across the design lifecycle. However, early stages of the design process still pose challenges to digitally mediated design collaboration due to greater representational abstraction and the presence of multiple modalities for design ideation. Usually, design teams spend a substantial amount of time generating a broad set of ideas that can lead them to a wide range of design solutions during the ideation phase. However, sooner or later, teams should narrow down their vision for a final solution. What factors influence team members to eliminate or select an idea? Our study is an attempt to demonstrate some examples of this challenge. By drawing on research in team cognition, particularly the concept of transactive memory system (TMS) we studied a design teams' communication and media use during the ideation phase. The goal was to see if media type and communication modes can predict a team's decisions on selecting and eliminating ideas.

Keywords

Collaborative designDesign cognitionCommunicationTeam Cognition
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 1529 - 1536
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Balakrishnan, B. and Oprean, D., 2015. Communication, Coordination and Collaboration: Media Affordances and Team Performance in a Collaborative Design Environment. In eCAADe 2015- real time-extending the reach of computation: proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe (Vol. 2, pp. 225-231). eCAADe.Google Scholar
Bolstad, C.A. and Endsley, M.R., 1999, September. Shared mental models and shared displays: An empirical evaluation of team performance. In proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 213-217). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandon, D.P. and Hollingshead, A.B., 2004. Transactive memory systems in organizations: Matching tasks, expertise, and people. Organization science, 15(6), pp.633–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, S.Y., Lee, H. and Yoo, Y., 2010. The impact of information technology and transactive memory systems on knowledge sharing, application, and team performance: A field study. MIS quarterly, pp.855–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, S., Cannon-Bowers, J.A. and Salas, E., 1993. Shared mental models in expert team decision making. Individual and group decision making: Current issues, 221, pp.221–246.Google Scholar
Cooke, N.J., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J.A. and Stout, R.J., 2000. Measuring team knowledge. Human factors, 42(1), pp.151–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, M., Markus, K.A. and Walters, S.B., 2006. Judging the credibility of criminal suspect statements: does mode of presentation matter?. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30(4), pp.181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, C.K. and Weingart, L.R., 2003. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied Psychology, 88(4), p.741.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D'souza, N. and Dastmalchi, M.R., 2016. Creativity on the move: Exploring little-c (p) and big-C (p) creative events within a multidisciplinary design team process. Design Studies, 46, pp.6–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, A.P., 2006. System breakdown: The role of mental models and transactive memory in the relationship between acute stress and team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), pp.576–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabriel, G.C. and Maher, M.L., 2002. Coding and modelling communication in architectural collaborative design. Automation in construction, 11(2), pp.199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollingshead, A.B., 1998. Communication, learning, and retrieval in transactive memory systems. Journal of experimental social psychology, 34(5), pp.423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jehn, K.A., 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative science quarterly, pp.256–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P. and Sweller, J., 1999. Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 13(4), pp.351–371.3.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinsmann, M. and Valkenburg, R., 2008. Barriers and enablers for creating shared understanding in co-design projects. Design studies, 29(4), pp.369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klimoski, R. and Mohammed, S., 1994. Team mental model: Construct or metaphor?. Journal of management, 20(2), pp.403–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langan-Fox, J., Anglim, J. and Wilson, J.R., 2004. Mental models, team mental models, and performance: Process, development, and future directions. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 14(4), pp.331–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, K., 2003. Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: scale development and validation. Journal of applied psychology, 88(4), p.587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayer, R.E. and Anderson, R.B., 1991. Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of educational psychology, 83(4), p.484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R.E. and Anderson, R.B., 1992. The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of educational Psychology, 84(4), p.444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R.E. and Sims, V.K., 1994. For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of educational psychology, 86(3), p.389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeese, M.D., Pfaff, M.S., Connors, E.S., Obieta, J.F., Terrell, I.S. and Friedenberg, M.A., 2006, October. Multiple vantage points of the common operational picture: Supporting international teamwork. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 467-471). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L. and Hamilton, K., 2010. Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model construct. Journal of management, 36(4), pp.876–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oshri, I., van Fenema, P.C. and Kotlarsky, J., 2008. Knowledge transfer in globally distributed teams: the role of transactive memory. In Knowledge Processes in Globally Distributed Contexts (pp. 24–52). Palgrave Macmillan, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ren, Y. and Argote, L., 2011. Transactive memory systems 1985–2010: An integrative framework of key dimensions, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), pp.189–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ren, Y., Carley, K.M. and Argote, L., 2006. The contingent effects of transactive memory: When is it more beneficial to know what others know?. Management Science, 52(5), pp.671–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sparrow, B., Liu, J. and Wegner, D.M., 2011. Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. science, 333(6043), pp.776–778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sundar, S.S., 2000. Multimedia effects on processing and perception of online news: A study of picture, audio, and video downloads. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), pp.480–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegner, D.M., 1987. Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). Springer, New York, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegner, D.M., Erber, R. and Raymond, P., 1991. Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of personality and social psychology, 61(6), p.923.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed